Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize. What does solving the global warming problem have to do with peace?

Question

And should I thank Al Gore for the light bulb I got from Yahoo! Answers?

Answer 1

You know, when you post a question, it will list similar questions already posted. You could save yourself some points, as I have answered this many times already today. But then, I suspect the posters of this question don't care so much for a factual answer. But, just in case you do. . .

Here is the rationale:

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming, 'may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.'". . .
Jan Egeland, a Norwegian peace mediator and former U.N. undersecretary for humanitarian affairs, also called climate change more than an environmental issue.

"'It is a question of war and peace,' said Egeland, now director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo. 'We're already seeing the first climate wars, in the Sahel belt of Africa.' He said nomads and herders are in conflict with farmers because the changing climate has brought drought and a shortage of fertile lands."

Answer 2

Here is the explanation:


Updated: 7:32 a.m. CT Feb 1, 2007
OSLO, Norway - Former Vice President Al Gore was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his wide-reaching efforts to draw the world’s attention to the dangers of global warming, a Norwegian lawmaker said Thursday.

“A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference,” Conservative Member of Parliament Boerge Brende, a former minister of environment and then of trade, told The Associated Press.

Answer 3

Sounds like you are a teenager. Nobel invented dynamite.
When Nobel saw that dynamite could be so destructive, he turned his money over to giving an award that would denote peace. Never did he dream dynamite would be used destructively.
So, peace is anything in essence that makes life better, be it solving problems in medicine, in economy, in sociology. The Nobel Peace Prize is THE top honor around the world for those who are trying to make life better for the planet.
If we do not correct global warming as best we can, and we have droughts, etc. there will be war as a result. Mankind stands in a very fragile balance right now. We have opportunities to make this earth livable for centuries to come. We also have nuclear weapons to destroy this world.
It is so important in the 21st century to make living better one of our main goals ALL around the world. So, not solving the global warming issue will be harmful to all mankind.

Answer 4

You to think that the Nobel Peace Prize has anything to do with peace. occasionally it will but typically its just a name. If it were the case though, being able to solve global warming would help solve natural resource problems and possibly prevent a premature ice age.

Answer 5

Yea nicely they gave one to Arafat for peace and Carter for peace 2 of the least deserving human beings contained in the international on the time they're going to supply A noble to all of us as long as they hate u . s . as AL Gore does and Carter does and Arafat did there is not any international warming and the Nobel committee isn't a good source of wise i will follow scientists

Answer 6

He's an absolute idiot! (and a liar). "Global Warming" is a hoax and a fraud, and Gore knows it but is getting VERY rich off it.

Also, it does have nothing to do with peace, you're absolutely right.

"Greenpeace", by the way, is a group of whackjob idiots as well. They only want to take away your money and control your life. And they want Americans to give up our lifestyle, it's all about punishing success and happiness. If you have a high standard of living, you deserve to be punished (and it has nothing to do with the environment - most of them know Global "warming" is a lie). The hottest year in the US since they began keeping systematic records in the 1880's was 1934! 1934!! So, even tho' we have many millions more cars now (they had a few thousand in the country then). . and millions more drivers, along with buses, trucks, planes, tractors, etc, we didn't have back then. . in 73 years we haven't gotten it any warmer than it was in 1934??. . My, what a liar that Gore is!! (this is from NASA's website, by the way).

Also, it's been much warmer at times in the past (the medieval warming period (11th/12th centuries), when they were actually FARMING in Greenland (no, there was no ice sheet there then), it's much colder in Greenland now than it was then (that's why it's called Greenland, because it was GREEN then), but this liar uses the "ice sheet melting" nonsense to tell us that we have to do something. What he DOESN'T tell you is that most of the biggest glaciers in the world are GROWING by leaps and bounds and it's getting COLDER in the antarctic AND the arctic. And the amount of ice they are producing is WAY more than any lost by "melting" (shed a tear here, for the poor polar bears (Gore knows nothing about polar bears or how they live, or he'd probably not use such a simplistic and stupid argument in his movie, but then again, most of his arguments are lies that the top scientists have condemned him for making up). The top atmospheric scientist at MIT (THE top tech/science college in the country) says global warming is a hoax and a fraud. The top atmospheric scientist at the University of Virginia says it's a fraud. The head of NASA said it's not something to worry about. The man who was the head of the national weather service for 30 years says it's a hoax. So who to believe?? The liar who said he invented the internet (he never even HEARD of the internet til it was several years old), or men who've been studying this kind of stuff their whole lives and know much more about it than he ever will??

Conclusion, "greenhouse gases". . do NOT cause (and have nothing to do with) any "warming" (real or perceived (or made up, by Gore and those idiots). And not only that, there is NO proof at all that it's even WARMNING!! More glaciers are GROWING and getting much BIGGER than any that are melting, and by much bigger amounts!!

Answer 7

Long answer: Absolutley Nothing!
Short answer: Absolutley Nothing!
The award has now become a "Champion a Liberal Cause" piece. There is no more prestige assosicated with this award. It's now a political statement. Why did Carter win in 2002 to stick it to Bush! Why did Gore win in 2007 to stick it to the over 1000+ scientists who say that global warming being caused my man is BS! So the real test will be when all these people are de-bunked and proven to be agenda driven idealogs will the person who proved them wrong win the award. My guess is no! Let the Europeans live in thier fantasy world where everything is great. U.S is here to save the world guys don't worry. We'll bail you out too when Iran sends the bomb.

Answer 8

Ever heard of a little operation called "Greenpeace"?
It's been around for 30 years.

You don't have to be at war to bring a world together for a nobel cause that involves the earth we dwell on.

Answer 9

Just about the same thing that Yassar Arafat had to do with peace when he won the Nobel Prize for the same thing several years ago.

Answer 10

Everything. It would end a fight over natural resources.

Ever heard of Iraq and Israel?